MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final analysis of KEYNOTE-189: Pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy (chemo) with or without pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2020· article· en· W3028754062 on OpenAlexaff
Delvys Rodríguez‐Abreu, Steven Powell, Maximilian J. Hochmair, Shirish M. Gadgeel, Emilio Esteban, Enriqueta Felip, Giovanna Speranza, M. Dómine Gómez, Susanna Y. Cheng, Helge Bischoff, Nir Peled, Martin Reck, Rina Hui, Edward B. Garon, Michael Boyer, Takayasu Kurata, Jing Yang, Tuba Öcek Baş, Fabricio Souza, Marina Chiara Garassino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreHôpital Charles-Le Moyne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePemetrexedLung cancerPlaceboInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyCarboplatinCisplatinRandomizationProgression-free survivalChemotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9582 Background: The phase III KEYNOTE-189 study (NCT02578680), showed significant improvements in OS and PFS with pembro + chemo vs placebo + chemo in pts with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR/ALK mutations. We report the protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-189. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 35 cycles of pembro 200 mg Q3W (n = 410) or placebo Q3W (n = 206) plus 4 cycles of pemetrexed (pem) and carboplatin/cisplatin followed by maintenance pem. Pts in the placebo + chemo arm could crossover to pembro upon PD. PFS and OS were primary endpoints; ORR was a secondary endpoint. PFS2 (time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line treatment/death), was an exploratory endpoint. Results: At data cutoff (May 20, 2019), median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 31.0 (26.5–38.8) mo. 17 pts in the pembro + chemo arm and 1 pt in the placebo + chemo arm were receiving initially assigned treatment; 84 pts crossed over to pembro. Median (95% CI) OS (22.0 [19.5–24.5] vs 10.6 [8.7–13.6] mo; HR 0.56 [95% CI, 0.46–0.69]) and PFS (9.0 [8.1–10.4] vs 4.9 [4.7–5.5] mo; HR 0.49 [95% CI, 0.41–0.59]) were longer with pembro + chemo vs placebo + chemo (Table). The 2-y OS rate was 45.7% vs 27.3% and the 2-y PFS rate was 22.0% vs 3.4%. ORR was 48.3% with pembro + chemo vs 19.9% with placebo + chemo. 56 pts in the pembro + chemo arm completed 35 cycles of pembro among whom ORR was 85.7% (4 CR, 44 PR, 8 SD) and median OS was not reached. 292 (72.1%) pts in the pembro + chemo arm and 135 (66.8%) pts in the placebo + chemo arm had grade 3–5 AEs. Conclusions: Pembro + chemo continued to show improved outcomes in OS, PFS, ORR and PFS2 compared with placebo + chemo, with manageable toxicity. These findings support first-line pembro + chemo in pts with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT02578680 . [Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207